What kind of an idiot would call for an attack on our ally Qatar?
November 29, 2005 2:23 PM Subscribe
What kind of an idiot would call for an attack on our ally Qatar? Frank Gaffney Jr. did. He served as Reagan's former Undersecretary for Defense, is the President of the influential neocon Center for Security Policy, was a fellow member of the Project for the New American Century (along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc.), and apparently serves an advisor to the Pentagon. He called for al-Jazeera to "be taken off the air, one way or another" six months before Bush's meeting with Blair, and clearly had the connections needed to put policy into action within the Bush administration.
Not surprisingly they're afraid of their own methods, having noticed how successful they can be.
posted by elpapacito at 3:09 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by elpapacito at 3:09 PM on November 29, 2005
The Official Secrets Act is not as bad (good from douchebag's point of view) as a bare reading of its provisions might seem. One of its most reassuring features is that it's turned out to be quite hard to get a jury to convict on it.
posted by athenian at 3:28 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by athenian at 3:28 PM on November 29, 2005
jsavimbi writes "Where's the news here?"
Well precisely.
That's the fucking problem: stuff that five years ago we'd all have dismissed (well, I would have) as the ravings of paranoid looney left-wing acid-dropping conspiracy theorists -- is today's unsurprising news.
posted by orthogonality at 3:48 PM on November 29, 2005
Well precisely.
That's the fucking problem: stuff that five years ago we'd all have dismissed (well, I would have) as the ravings of paranoid looney left-wing acid-dropping conspiracy theorists -- is today's unsurprising news.
posted by orthogonality at 3:48 PM on November 29, 2005
Um, not exactly. You would've been dismissed as a raving, paranoid looney left-wing acid-dropping conspiracy theorist by raving paranoid looney right-wing bible-thumping conspiracy theorists.
Al-Jazeera, for what it's worth, is a relatively new phenomenon, however I'm pretty sure that it's regarded as a legitimate military target by the powers that be. Looking back at how they herded the "embedded" press around and fully warned third parties to stay clear, it was no surprise, at least to me, when they targeted the al-Jazeera offices and the hotel where a lot of [other] press were staying.
That goes beyond a warning.
It's simple: if you're providing real-time battlefield information to my enemy, you're a combatant. So you're located in a third country, who also happens to be an ally of mine in the region??....well, there isn't much a carbomb won't take care off. As far as the Qatari royals/government getting all hissy, how about a trip to Disneyland and a scholarship to Harvard for a couple of the princes? Good deal.
Anyways, there's absolutely nothing in this thread that isn't trumped by the two "leaked" memos, who just happen to be jumping like bulls at the gate to make into the MSM. Should be a great read. Guess we'll have to wait until then.
I have to side with Muhammad Ali on this one.
posted by jsavimbi at 3:59 PM on November 29, 2005
Al-Jazeera, for what it's worth, is a relatively new phenomenon, however I'm pretty sure that it's regarded as a legitimate military target by the powers that be. Looking back at how they herded the "embedded" press around and fully warned third parties to stay clear, it was no surprise, at least to me, when they targeted the al-Jazeera offices and the hotel where a lot of [other] press were staying.
That goes beyond a warning.
It's simple: if you're providing real-time battlefield information to my enemy, you're a combatant. So you're located in a third country, who also happens to be an ally of mine in the region??....well, there isn't much a carbomb won't take care off. As far as the Qatari royals/government getting all hissy, how about a trip to Disneyland and a scholarship to Harvard for a couple of the princes? Good deal.
Anyways, there's absolutely nothing in this thread that isn't trumped by the two "leaked" memos, who just happen to be jumping like bulls at the gate to make into the MSM. Should be a great read. Guess we'll have to wait until then.
I have to side with Muhammad Ali on this one.
posted by jsavimbi at 3:59 PM on November 29, 2005
How is this not terrorism? Al-Jazeera is a legitimate news organization.
posted by bshort at 4:10 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by bshort at 4:10 PM on November 29, 2005
bshort: what exactly is a legitimate news organization?
Back in the days of the US Civil War, northern reporters who sympathized with the South would sneak into Union Army camps, hoping to find information of use to the enemy. General Sherman would put them on a mule, backwards, and have them ridden around the camp with a sign around their necks which read "SPY", before kicking them out. That was fair warning. If they tried to get back into the camp, the pickets had orders to shoot them on sight.
al-Jazeera has been present at many attacks against US forces before they happened. This is not the same as being "embedded" with the terrorists, as their footage was clearly used for anti-US propaganda. No objectivity was involved, and even the methodology and effectiveness of the attack was discussed, with no other reason than to improve the quality--and lethality of future attacks.
The government of Qatar, for its part, has been equally willing to allow al-Jazeera to annoy other regional government, who regularly throw it out of their country, as it has been to allow them to annoy the US.
This brings up the simple quandary: if by its efforts to provide tactical information to the enemy, coupled with its willingness to both create and export propaganda against the US, and now the government of Iraq, is it still a legitimate media organization? If it is engaging in actions in support of an antagonist, it can no longer claim neutrality, so does it become a legitimate military target?
posted by kablam at 4:44 PM on November 29, 2005
Back in the days of the US Civil War, northern reporters who sympathized with the South would sneak into Union Army camps, hoping to find information of use to the enemy. General Sherman would put them on a mule, backwards, and have them ridden around the camp with a sign around their necks which read "SPY", before kicking them out. That was fair warning. If they tried to get back into the camp, the pickets had orders to shoot them on sight.
al-Jazeera has been present at many attacks against US forces before they happened. This is not the same as being "embedded" with the terrorists, as their footage was clearly used for anti-US propaganda. No objectivity was involved, and even the methodology and effectiveness of the attack was discussed, with no other reason than to improve the quality--and lethality of future attacks.
The government of Qatar, for its part, has been equally willing to allow al-Jazeera to annoy other regional government, who regularly throw it out of their country, as it has been to allow them to annoy the US.
This brings up the simple quandary: if by its efforts to provide tactical information to the enemy, coupled with its willingness to both create and export propaganda against the US, and now the government of Iraq, is it still a legitimate media organization? If it is engaging in actions in support of an antagonist, it can no longer claim neutrality, so does it become a legitimate military target?
posted by kablam at 4:44 PM on November 29, 2005
jsavimbi, They don't need to buy off the royals of Qatar. Not any more than Isreal needed to buy off the U.S. when they sank our spy ship, or the U.S. needed to buy off China when we blew up their embassy; both of which were intentional too. Nations don't escalate conflicts unless they profit politically or economically from the profit.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:57 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by jeffburdges at 4:57 PM on November 29, 2005
I'm sure al-Jazeera is more than fully aware that they're sail a little too close to the wind and eventually they'll hit the pier. That cost has already been factored in.
Honestly, I applaud them for going out there with the "other side" and reporting their story. (Let's leave the term propaganda aside, because we here in the US have nothing to gripe about).
However, that being said, my enemy's enemy is my friend, but my enemy's friend is my enemy. I'm the sure the Israelis have a way of dealing with al-Jazeera. Why didn't we subcontract this whole thing to them?
This by no means legitimizes insomnia_lj's post. Completely off-topic and in the wrong forum again. Try selling this bull over at a real political blog.
At least he listens to me occasionally and this time provided [what he calls] research in the form of factual links, even though wiki-type links don't really provide genuine back-up. It looked like a decent FPP at first, albeit the wing-nut headline, but he failed to actually provide anything of substance aside from even more proof that Bush gets his talking points from his nutty friends. Meh, he was 50/50 this time.
posted by jsavimbi at 4:58 PM on November 29, 2005
Honestly, I applaud them for going out there with the "other side" and reporting their story. (Let's leave the term propaganda aside, because we here in the US have nothing to gripe about).
However, that being said, my enemy's enemy is my friend, but my enemy's friend is my enemy. I'm the sure the Israelis have a way of dealing with al-Jazeera. Why didn't we subcontract this whole thing to them?
This by no means legitimizes insomnia_lj's post. Completely off-topic and in the wrong forum again. Try selling this bull over at a real political blog.
At least he listens to me occasionally and this time provided [what he calls] research in the form of factual links, even though wiki-type links don't really provide genuine back-up. It looked like a decent FPP at first, albeit the wing-nut headline, but he failed to actually provide anything of substance aside from even more proof that Bush gets his talking points from his nutty friends. Meh, he was 50/50 this time.
posted by jsavimbi at 4:58 PM on November 29, 2005
"al-Jazeera has been present at many attacks against US forces before they happened."
I've heard that bantered around before, but what I haven't seen is any evidence that this is the case. Where, for instance, is the photographic or video evidence of this, because all I've heard is hearsay.
What do you call "present" anyways? In the vicinity? Are you sure we're talking about al-Jazeera reporters and cameramen, as opposed to insurgents passing video to al-Jazeera, or perhaps someone from the insurgents who was seen videotaping an incident?
Even assuming that an al-Jazeera reporter were tipped off shortly before some incident occurred that they should be at a certain place, or perhaps told to meet someone in a particular location, how does that necessarily suggest any wrongdoing on their part? Really, if there was an insurgent attack on a given location, it would be in the best interest of the insurgents to have reporters nearby... not right there, staked out ahead of time, waiting.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:13 PM on November 29, 2005
I've heard that bantered around before, but what I haven't seen is any evidence that this is the case. Where, for instance, is the photographic or video evidence of this, because all I've heard is hearsay.
What do you call "present" anyways? In the vicinity? Are you sure we're talking about al-Jazeera reporters and cameramen, as opposed to insurgents passing video to al-Jazeera, or perhaps someone from the insurgents who was seen videotaping an incident?
Even assuming that an al-Jazeera reporter were tipped off shortly before some incident occurred that they should be at a certain place, or perhaps told to meet someone in a particular location, how does that necessarily suggest any wrongdoing on their part? Really, if there was an insurgent attack on a given location, it would be in the best interest of the insurgents to have reporters nearby... not right there, staked out ahead of time, waiting.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:13 PM on November 29, 2005
OK, wait, so the official line from the Busg Administration is that the entire claim is absurd, right? What's the Vegas line on when they officially convert to "Yes we did it, but we were justified" argument? Nice of so many Bush Admin friendlies to pave the way.
posted by Neologian at 5:16 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by Neologian at 5:16 PM on November 29, 2005
So it's completely off-topic that a well-connected neocon adviser to the Pentagon with close personal connections to Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz called for attacking al-Jazeera a few months before Bush did?
It would explain a lot, certainly, as it was quite possibly discussed by neocons within the highest level of the Pentagon, especially if Bush was serious about what he said to Blair, as is claimed by those who read the memo in question.
So, how is the post offtopic? If you want to discuss the merit of the topic rather than saying that the topic isn't a topic, well... then by all means, go ahead. If you want to make a post yourself that you feel is more relevant, you're free to do that too.
This post isn't about me, jsavimbi, no matter how much you always seem to argue otherwise.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:26 PM on November 29, 2005
It would explain a lot, certainly, as it was quite possibly discussed by neocons within the highest level of the Pentagon, especially if Bush was serious about what he said to Blair, as is claimed by those who read the memo in question.
So, how is the post offtopic? If you want to discuss the merit of the topic rather than saying that the topic isn't a topic, well... then by all means, go ahead. If you want to make a post yourself that you feel is more relevant, you're free to do that too.
This post isn't about me, jsavimbi, no matter how much you always seem to argue otherwise.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:26 PM on November 29, 2005
...because all I've heard is hearsay.
insomnia_lj, that pretty much sums up everything you've ever heard. Are you paid to be this obtuse, or do you work at it? This guy acts like he was actually present at the Blair-Bush meeting.
Disclaimer: insomnia_lj fancies himself an online investigative journalist. Please play along with him. It's all he has.
Moving along...jeffburdges, sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. The Chinese [embassy] were caught with their pants down in Belgrade, just as our EP-3 was off of Hainan Island, as was the USS Liberty, which was not sunk, btw. However, it's understandable that the Qataris are a little put out. They're a third party to all of this and such an incident could bring down their shaky government.
Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and we didn't have to make an apology and offer restitution to them.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:31 PM on November 29, 2005
insomnia_lj, that pretty much sums up everything you've ever heard. Are you paid to be this obtuse, or do you work at it? This guy acts like he was actually present at the Blair-Bush meeting.
Disclaimer: insomnia_lj fancies himself an online investigative journalist. Please play along with him. It's all he has.
Moving along...jeffburdges, sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. The Chinese [embassy] were caught with their pants down in Belgrade, just as our EP-3 was off of Hainan Island, as was the USS Liberty, which was not sunk, btw. However, it's understandable that the Qataris are a little put out. They're a third party to all of this and such an incident could bring down their shaky government.
Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and we didn't have to make an apology and offer restitution to them.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:31 PM on November 29, 2005
As a sign of his importance in advising those in neocon circles, it should also be pointed out that Frank Gaffney Jr. also suggested in the article that the US should "rapidly start up a satellite television service of (its) own, capable of reaching millions of currently unserved viewers in Iraq.
It shouldn't be any surprise that shortly afterwards, on November 15th, 2003, Mike Allen, a reporter for the Washington Post, wrote the article "Pentagon Plans Iraq Channel -- Satellite Link Allows White House to Bypass TV Networks".
This idea of creating a pro-US channel in Iraq was clearly seen in the creation of the Iraqi Media Project / al-Iraqiya, which was funded and organized by the Pentagon. During the initial planning stages, the Iraqi Media Project was supposed to be an independent and impartial television station, more akin to PBS than propaganda. A US TV producer who worked for the project during its infancy later quit in disgust, calling the channel an "irrelevant mouthpiece for Coalition Provisional Authority propaganda, managed news and mediocre programs."
Sounds like he has some pull within the Bush administration, if not as an idea man for the neocons, then at least as someone who knows what is being discussed, who floats ideas that those in power would rather not float themselves, to see what the public reaction is.
The reaction, in this case was negligible, at least to the readers of Fox News.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:34 PM on November 29, 2005
It shouldn't be any surprise that shortly afterwards, on November 15th, 2003, Mike Allen, a reporter for the Washington Post, wrote the article "Pentagon Plans Iraq Channel -- Satellite Link Allows White House to Bypass TV Networks".
This idea of creating a pro-US channel in Iraq was clearly seen in the creation of the Iraqi Media Project / al-Iraqiya, which was funded and organized by the Pentagon. During the initial planning stages, the Iraqi Media Project was supposed to be an independent and impartial television station, more akin to PBS than propaganda. A US TV producer who worked for the project during its infancy later quit in disgust, calling the channel an "irrelevant mouthpiece for Coalition Provisional Authority propaganda, managed news and mediocre programs."
Sounds like he has some pull within the Bush administration, if not as an idea man for the neocons, then at least as someone who knows what is being discussed, who floats ideas that those in power would rather not float themselves, to see what the public reaction is.
The reaction, in this case was negligible, at least to the readers of Fox News.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:34 PM on November 29, 2005
Thanks to Kablam for demonstrating exactly the insane "reasoning" that led Bush to seriously call, in a meeting with the British prime minister, for the bombing of civilian journalists.
Like other Bush policies, its justification requires two psychological ingredients, as Kablam demonstrated. Firstly, the would-be killer must loudly claim belief in what he knows to be a pack of lies; and secondly, he must claim to believe that these lies are adequate justification for mass murder. The fact that Bush can use such reasoning, in public, without being impeached, is noteworthy.
Actually al-Jazeera's crime is reporting the news, moderately and intelligently, as anyone can see from their English-language web site. Hardly a terrorist mouthpiece. It is, however, outside the control of American corporate interests, and that makes it, from their viewpoint, an unacceptable threat.
Totalitarian regimes have always been willing to kill innocent people in order to prevent the development of any media that might challenge their propaganda hegemony. However, it is both unusual and newsworthy for the President of the United States to so publicly admit to it.
posted by cleardawn at 5:40 PM on November 29, 2005
Like other Bush policies, its justification requires two psychological ingredients, as Kablam demonstrated. Firstly, the would-be killer must loudly claim belief in what he knows to be a pack of lies; and secondly, he must claim to believe that these lies are adequate justification for mass murder. The fact that Bush can use such reasoning, in public, without being impeached, is noteworthy.
Actually al-Jazeera's crime is reporting the news, moderately and intelligently, as anyone can see from their English-language web site. Hardly a terrorist mouthpiece. It is, however, outside the control of American corporate interests, and that makes it, from their viewpoint, an unacceptable threat.
Totalitarian regimes have always been willing to kill innocent people in order to prevent the development of any media that might challenge their propaganda hegemony. However, it is both unusual and newsworthy for the President of the United States to so publicly admit to it.
posted by cleardawn at 5:40 PM on November 29, 2005
jsavimbi, I'd be happy to join with you in a letter writing campaign to have Geraldo executed.
posted by bardic at 6:01 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by bardic at 6:01 PM on November 29, 2005
If al-Jazeera wanted to help the insurgents, they'd give them the "sensitive tactical information" by email, IRC or text message instead of putting it on the evening bulletin. The insurgents wouldn't want the Americans to know that they knew what they knew. Al-Jazeera was no more beneficial to the insurgents tactically than CNN or Fox News. The administration saw them as a threat because they reported other, non-tactical things that they didn't like being reported, because they don't believe in freedom of the press.
posted by ab'd al'Hazred at 6:05 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by ab'd al'Hazred at 6:05 PM on November 29, 2005
The Chinese [embassy] were caught with their pants down in Belgrade
China has nuclear weapons. You know, non-imaginary ones.
posted by ab'd al'Hazred at 6:07 PM on November 29, 2005
China has nuclear weapons. You know, non-imaginary ones.
posted by ab'd al'Hazred at 6:07 PM on November 29, 2005
jsavimbi, I'd be happy to join with you in a letter writing campaign to have Geraldo executed.
I'm not a joiner, but I don't think you'll find a lot of opposition to your letter-writing thingee. Good luck.
China has nuclear weapons. You know, non-imaginary ones.
ab'd al'Hazred, thanks for the informations. And your point is?
posted by jsavimbi at 6:10 PM on November 29, 2005
I'm not a joiner, but I don't think you'll find a lot of opposition to your letter-writing thingee. Good luck.
China has nuclear weapons. You know, non-imaginary ones.
ab'd al'Hazred, thanks for the informations. And your point is?
posted by jsavimbi at 6:10 PM on November 29, 2005
kablam writes "Back in the days of the US Civil War"
... torture was legal. The Geneva Conventions didn't exist, which also afford protections to journalists.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:02 PM on November 29, 2005
... torture was legal. The Geneva Conventions didn't exist, which also afford protections to journalists.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:02 PM on November 29, 2005
jsavimbi writes "However, that being said, my enemy's enemy is my friend, but my enemy's friend is my enemy."
Saying that Al Jazeera is "my enemy's" friend, and therefore is your enemy, is a bit like saying that all Middle Eastern nations are your enemy. Good luck with that.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:13 PM on November 29, 2005
Saying that Al Jazeera is "my enemy's" friend, and therefore is your enemy, is a bit like saying that all Middle Eastern nations are your enemy. Good luck with that.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:13 PM on November 29, 2005
Regarding al-Jazeera supposedly being "present at many attacks against US forces before they happened", I asked, essentially, "Where's the evidence? I've heard is hearsay."
To which jsavimbi said:
"that pretty much sums up everything you've ever heard. Are you paid to be this obtuse, or do you work at it?"
...and then he goes on for another five or six sentences of insults.
No, seriously, jsavimbi. Where's the f*ing evidence? Cite me the actual relevant evidence that shows they're conspiring in a crime, as opposed to being journalists... because al-Jazeera's staff in Qatar are innocent, and should be proven guilty of something before they're killed in the name of the United States. The burden of proof is on you.
I think the Bush administration has been as open and honest regarding the evidence against al-Jazeera as they were about the evidence of weaponized WMDs in Iraq that we supposedly *KNEW* they had. Hell, Rumsfeld even said he knew where it was located too, remember?
So, where's the damn evidence? Perhaps you expect me to take Donald Rumsfeld's word on it or something? Because frankly, he lied to me. I don't trust him.
"...what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable. . . you know what our forces do; they don't go around killing hundreds of civilians. That's just outrageous nonsense!" - Donald Rumsfeld at Pentagon news conference, April 15, 2004... the day before Bush and Blair's meeting at the White House.
- The Lancet report on Iraqi Mortality
I think the problem isn't al-Jazeera helping the enemy. I think the problem is al-Jazeera reporting on dead civilians and a corrupt government.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:57 PM on November 29, 2005
To which jsavimbi said:
"that pretty much sums up everything you've ever heard. Are you paid to be this obtuse, or do you work at it?"
...and then he goes on for another five or six sentences of insults.
No, seriously, jsavimbi. Where's the f*ing evidence? Cite me the actual relevant evidence that shows they're conspiring in a crime, as opposed to being journalists... because al-Jazeera's staff in Qatar are innocent, and should be proven guilty of something before they're killed in the name of the United States. The burden of proof is on you.
I think the Bush administration has been as open and honest regarding the evidence against al-Jazeera as they were about the evidence of weaponized WMDs in Iraq that we supposedly *KNEW* they had. Hell, Rumsfeld even said he knew where it was located too, remember?
So, where's the damn evidence? Perhaps you expect me to take Donald Rumsfeld's word on it or something? Because frankly, he lied to me. I don't trust him.
"...what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable. . . you know what our forces do; they don't go around killing hundreds of civilians. That's just outrageous nonsense!" - Donald Rumsfeld at Pentagon news conference, April 15, 2004... the day before Bush and Blair's meeting at the White House.
The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion.- The Lancet report on Iraqi Mortality
I think the problem isn't al-Jazeera helping the enemy. I think the problem is al-Jazeera reporting on dead civilians and a corrupt government.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:57 PM on November 29, 2005
Before the gag order came into effect, Gaffney appeared with an al-Jazeera editor on the BBC's Newsnight. He talked about al-Jazeera being "enemy combatants". And... he tried to play down the significance of "bomb Qatar" memo, or its legitimacy.
The most striking thing was how he distanced himself from the Bush administration, he also seemed to shrug off any criticism of his opinion that al-Jazeera are the "propaganda arm of Osama bin-Laden/al-Qaeda."
Anyway, just so you know.
posted by gsb at 12:01 AM on November 30, 2005
The most striking thing was how he distanced himself from the Bush administration, he also seemed to shrug off any criticism of his opinion that al-Jazeera are the "propaganda arm of Osama bin-Laden/al-Qaeda."
Anyway, just so you know.
posted by gsb at 12:01 AM on November 30, 2005
Link to the original show and some post-show comments from viewers. More information here.
posted by gsb at 12:11 AM on November 30, 2005
posted by gsb at 12:11 AM on November 30, 2005
Here's an interesting new weblog put up by al-Jazeera employees, which has a lot of interesting coverage on the memo.
http://dontbomb.blogspot.com
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:27 AM on November 30, 2005
http://dontbomb.blogspot.com
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:27 AM on November 30, 2005
Jsavimbi, you are demonstrably full of shit.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:22 AM on November 30, 2005
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:22 AM on November 30, 2005
...and then he goes on for another five or six sentences of insults.
Please point out these five or six sentences of insults for me. I can't find them.
As far as being full of it, I think not. A couple of people here are full of themselves, if anything. You're compiling your thoughts/opinions based on the premise that BushCo actually plays by the rules in the book. For the hundreth time: the gloves are off, the rule book is out the window and they don't care about the rule of law because all they have to do is yell 9/11 a couple of times and the sheep will forget.
If insomnia_lj still thinks that "evidence" is a requirement to mete out punishment, then his shrooms are doing their job. Please share.
This is a useless thread anyways. We already know where Bush gets his ideas and talking points: the neocon cabal. No mystery there. WMD's, Abu Ghraib, Downing St. memos...The American people want nothing more than to bury these embarassing stories. I can forsee no deep concern for these issues in the future. The white phosphorus story isn't playing any more and that was only a couple of weeks ago.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:25 AM on November 30, 2005
Please point out these five or six sentences of insults for me. I can't find them.
As far as being full of it, I think not. A couple of people here are full of themselves, if anything. You're compiling your thoughts/opinions based on the premise that BushCo actually plays by the rules in the book. For the hundreth time: the gloves are off, the rule book is out the window and they don't care about the rule of law because all they have to do is yell 9/11 a couple of times and the sheep will forget.
If insomnia_lj still thinks that "evidence" is a requirement to mete out punishment, then his shrooms are doing their job. Please share.
This is a useless thread anyways. We already know where Bush gets his ideas and talking points: the neocon cabal. No mystery there. WMD's, Abu Ghraib, Downing St. memos...The American people want nothing more than to bury these embarassing stories. I can forsee no deep concern for these issues in the future. The white phosphorus story isn't playing any more and that was only a couple of weeks ago.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:25 AM on November 30, 2005
I don't see why you must track and personally attack insomnia_lj here on Mefi jsavimbi. He does some good work and makes some great contributions while all you do is criticize others.
Are you a sock puppet?
I agree with optimus chyme on this one. You are wrong.
"You're either with us or you're with the terraists."- (GWB, the "us" being his cabal, not the citizens of the US or the troops)
Simplistic thinking at its worst.
posted by nofundy at 7:37 AM on November 30, 2005
Are you a sock puppet?
I agree with optimus chyme on this one. You are wrong.
"You're either with us or you're with the terraists."- (GWB, the "us" being his cabal, not the citizens of the US or the troops)
Simplistic thinking at its worst.
posted by nofundy at 7:37 AM on November 30, 2005
nofundy, look up and down the thread. I called him obtuse. If referring to someone as "obtuse" (keep in mind that I didn't call him stupid) is offensive to you, then so be it. Btw, it's a Shawshank reference, hardly an insult. Matter of fact, he should be happy that at least someone critiques his rationale and theory.
Personally, I find it offensive when a person uses the tragedies of others to further their own agenda, and I find it hard to resist debating that premise with them. If you want to sit there while someone constructs a lopsided conspiracy full of hand-waving,heresay and cloudy facts, then that's your issue. You don't like it when people debate your ideas? Then keep them to yourself. That'll learn 'em.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:00 AM on November 30, 2005
Personally, I find it offensive when a person uses the tragedies of others to further their own agenda, and I find it hard to resist debating that premise with them. If you want to sit there while someone constructs a lopsided conspiracy full of hand-waving,heresay and cloudy facts, then that's your issue. You don't like it when people debate your ideas? Then keep them to yourself. That'll learn 'em.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:00 AM on November 30, 2005
It's simple: if you're providing real-time battlefield information to my enemy, you're a combatant.
You're compiling your thoughts/opinions based on the premise that BushCo actually plays by the rules in the book. For the hundreth time: the gloves are off, the rule book is out the window and they don't care about the rule of law because all they have to do is yell 9/11 a couple of times and the sheep will forget.
*head explodes*
If you're going to say things like what you say in the first quote, it might be helpful to note that you don't actually believe the claims you're parroting. Or do you believe them? Who knows?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:07 AM on November 30, 2005
You're compiling your thoughts/opinions based on the premise that BushCo actually plays by the rules in the book. For the hundreth time: the gloves are off, the rule book is out the window and they don't care about the rule of law because all they have to do is yell 9/11 a couple of times and the sheep will forget.
*head explodes*
If you're going to say things like what you say in the first quote, it might be helpful to note that you don't actually believe the claims you're parroting. Or do you believe them? Who knows?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:07 AM on November 30, 2005
I'm not taking sides here. I'm neither for targeting al-Jazeera nor against. I'm simply trying to give you a different perspective, viewed through the eyes on someone who has been there and had those experiences. And I hope to be honest and candid in my comments.
Granted, my opinions may not jive with yours when you're trying to whip up a frenzy over a perceived wrong, but all I can do is try and give you the facts as I know them. Call me a pragmatist or call me an asshole, at least I'm not a liar.
Do I track and pursue insomnia_lj? Not really. Do I harbor any ill will? Not likely. Unfortunately for him, he tends to post on the one topic where I can lend my expertise, and sometimes my brain just hurts when I read that he's flying off the handle, devoid of fact and research.
I'm not parroting any claims, Optimus Chyme, I was simply explaining that the conventional battlefield has changed (for the US forces, because we've been pulling this shite for years now without anyone really fighting back effectively), and that new rules and paradigms are emerging as conventional thinking shifts from military necesity to to moral overbearance.
Did I make any sense?
posted by jsavimbi at 8:36 AM on November 30, 2005
Granted, my opinions may not jive with yours when you're trying to whip up a frenzy over a perceived wrong, but all I can do is try and give you the facts as I know them. Call me a pragmatist or call me an asshole, at least I'm not a liar.
Do I track and pursue insomnia_lj? Not really. Do I harbor any ill will? Not likely. Unfortunately for him, he tends to post on the one topic where I can lend my expertise, and sometimes my brain just hurts when I read that he's flying off the handle, devoid of fact and research.
I'm not parroting any claims, Optimus Chyme, I was simply explaining that the conventional battlefield has changed (for the US forces, because we've been pulling this shite for years now without anyone really fighting back effectively), and that new rules and paradigms are emerging as conventional thinking shifts from military necesity to to moral overbearance.
Did I make any sense?
posted by jsavimbi at 8:36 AM on November 30, 2005
Personally, I find it offensive when a person uses the tragedies of others to further their own agenda
Everytime I hear Bush make a speech, he tries to bolster support for his war and policy by mentioning 9/11.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:53 AM on November 30, 2005
Everytime I hear Bush make a speech, he tries to bolster support for his war and policy by mentioning 9/11.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:53 AM on November 30, 2005
I'm not taking sides here. I'm neither for targeting al-Jazeera nor against. I'm simply trying to give you a different perspective, viewed through the eyes on someone who has been there and had those experiences. And I hope to be honest and candid in my comments.
That's a weird stance to take. Shouldn't the default stance toward killing journalists be "against"? I mean, either you have evidence of Al-Jazeera "providing real-time battlefield information to [the] enemy" or you don't. If you do, please provide it. If not, we shouldn't even consider murdering innocents.
but all I can do is try and give you the facts as I know them. Call me a pragmatist or call me an asshole, at least I'm not a liar.
Well, I'm still waiting on these facts, then.
Do I track and pursue insomnia_lj? Not really. Do I harbor any ill will? Not likely. Unfortunately for him, he tends to post on the one topic where I can lend my expertise, and sometimes my brain just hurts when I read that he's flying off the handle, devoid of fact and research.
Where are your facts and research? I mean, you must know that broadcasting enemy troop movements is a stupid tactic. Why would A-J do it? Is there evidence that they have?
Here's a sample of what not to do:
al-Jazeera has been present at many attacks against US forces before they happened
posted by kablam at 4:44 PM PST on November 29
No evidence is presented for this claim. You're clearly smarter than kablam, so let's all try to be a bit more thorough when we're discussing killing journalists.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:11 AM on November 30, 2005
That's a weird stance to take. Shouldn't the default stance toward killing journalists be "against"? I mean, either you have evidence of Al-Jazeera "providing real-time battlefield information to [the] enemy" or you don't. If you do, please provide it. If not, we shouldn't even consider murdering innocents.
but all I can do is try and give you the facts as I know them. Call me a pragmatist or call me an asshole, at least I'm not a liar.
Well, I'm still waiting on these facts, then.
Do I track and pursue insomnia_lj? Not really. Do I harbor any ill will? Not likely. Unfortunately for him, he tends to post on the one topic where I can lend my expertise, and sometimes my brain just hurts when I read that he's flying off the handle, devoid of fact and research.
Where are your facts and research? I mean, you must know that broadcasting enemy troop movements is a stupid tactic. Why would A-J do it? Is there evidence that they have?
Here's a sample of what not to do:
al-Jazeera has been present at many attacks against US forces before they happened
posted by kablam at 4:44 PM PST on November 29
No evidence is presented for this claim. You're clearly smarter than kablam, so let's all try to be a bit more thorough when we're discussing killing journalists.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:11 AM on November 30, 2005
...so let's all try to be a bit more thorough when we're discussing killing journalists.
I have no facts as to whether or not al-Jazeera is supplying info to the insurgency or not, nor do I have any evidence that the gummint planned to bomb A-J's HQ in Doha, Qatar. And neither do you. That, my right honorable friend, is a fact, and until someone release those damned memos, you and I will remain ignorant to their content.
What I do happen to believe as fact is that the gummint would not hesitate to to attack A-J or their proxies should they come across them on the battlefield (ie inside Iraq). They've already done so. That is a fact.
Based on that fact, and using a little bit of experience and theory, I have come to pressume that the US military views A-J as a legitimate military target. From that, I can only conclude that the US military command believes that A-J is either aiding the insurgency in some way or, most likely, hindering the US military efforts to stave off the insurgency, and thus, as a player, must be removed from the battlefield. Most expediently. That is military logic.
I do not know where they got their information, the validity of said information or belief, nor am I cognizant to the interest of the supplying party.
From what I do know, the 1977 protocols of the Geneva Convention afford the same protections to journalists as they do to civilians. Thus, someone in the military command structure (***insert conspiracy here***) has probably revoked al-Jazeera's status as an independant news organizations and has designated it as "combatant". This is the only answer that sounds plausible to me.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:05 AM on November 30, 2005
I have no facts as to whether or not al-Jazeera is supplying info to the insurgency or not, nor do I have any evidence that the gummint planned to bomb A-J's HQ in Doha, Qatar. And neither do you. That, my right honorable friend, is a fact, and until someone release those damned memos, you and I will remain ignorant to their content.
What I do happen to believe as fact is that the gummint would not hesitate to to attack A-J or their proxies should they come across them on the battlefield (ie inside Iraq). They've already done so. That is a fact.
Based on that fact, and using a little bit of experience and theory, I have come to pressume that the US military views A-J as a legitimate military target. From that, I can only conclude that the US military command believes that A-J is either aiding the insurgency in some way or, most likely, hindering the US military efforts to stave off the insurgency, and thus, as a player, must be removed from the battlefield. Most expediently. That is military logic.
I do not know where they got their information, the validity of said information or belief, nor am I cognizant to the interest of the supplying party.
From what I do know, the 1977 protocols of the Geneva Convention afford the same protections to journalists as they do to civilians. Thus, someone in the military command structure (***insert conspiracy here***) has probably revoked al-Jazeera's status as an independant news organizations and has designated it as "combatant". This is the only answer that sounds plausible to me.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:05 AM on November 30, 2005
What I do happen to believe as fact is that the gummint would not hesitate to to attack A-J or their proxies should they come across them on the battlefield (ie inside Iraq). They've already done so. That is a fact.
So if a non-embedded reporter is on the ground in Iraq, they are fair game? Do I have that right?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:36 AM on November 30, 2005
So if a non-embedded reporter is on the ground in Iraq, they are fair game? Do I have that right?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:36 AM on November 30, 2005
So if a non-embedded reporter is on the ground in Iraq, they are fair game? Do I have that right?
Not according to the Geneva Conventions. But, hey, what's that all about anyway? It would behoove any journalist in Iraq to get themselves an authorized press pass. The right press pass. Especially if they're not American/British.
That's not only a fact, but also common sense.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:51 AM on November 30, 2005
Not according to the Geneva Conventions. But, hey, what's that all about anyway? It would behoove any journalist in Iraq to get themselves an authorized press pass. The right press pass. Especially if they're not American/British.
That's not only a fact, but also common sense.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:51 AM on November 30, 2005
So basically what you're saying is that if the American military kills someone, there had to be a reason for it, therefore it was justified. Awesome.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:50 AM on November 30, 2005
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:50 AM on November 30, 2005
The argument gets even better: they do it with your tax dollars. With the approval of your democratically elected representatives. I think that makes you complicit.
Don't worry, nobody is going to drag you before a war crimes tribunal. After all, 275 million Americans can't be wrong.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:59 PM on November 30, 2005
Don't worry, nobody is going to drag you before a war crimes tribunal. After all, 275 million Americans can't be wrong.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:59 PM on November 30, 2005
Is this interpretation of what you're saying incorrect in some manner? "If the American military kills someone, there had to be a reason for it, therefore it was justified."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:15 PM on November 30, 2005
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:15 PM on November 30, 2005
I'd substitute the term "kills" for "targets".
Killing is too personal. What they do is target enemy units, command and control capabilities, air defense facilities, logistical supply chains...see where I'm going with this?
As far as the reasoning goes, why else would someone, somewhere in the chain of command, divert a resource to attack a target outside of the natural battlefield? For shits and giggles?
[I'm referring to the attack on the Baghdad A-J facility, not the alleged Doha one]
posted by jsavimbi at 1:32 PM on November 30, 2005
Killing is too personal. What they do is target enemy units, command and control capabilities, air defense facilities, logistical supply chains...see where I'm going with this?
As far as the reasoning goes, why else would someone, somewhere in the chain of command, divert a resource to attack a target outside of the natural battlefield? For shits and giggles?
[I'm referring to the attack on the Baghdad A-J facility, not the alleged Doha one]
posted by jsavimbi at 1:32 PM on November 30, 2005
I'd substitute the term "kills" for "targets".
Killing is too personal.
Tough shit. If you're going to kill someone you might as well admit to it instead of hiding like a bitch behind bullshit euphemisms.
As far as the reasoning goes, why else would someone, somewhere in the chain of command, divert a resource to attack a target outside of the natural battlefield? For shits and giggles?
Maybe because they reported stories someone high in the chain of command didn't want reported. Simple enough. Fortunately, you'll be there to help them come up with an unsupported lie like "they were broadcasting troop positions."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:54 PM on November 30, 2005
Killing is too personal.
Tough shit. If you're going to kill someone you might as well admit to it instead of hiding like a bitch behind bullshit euphemisms.
As far as the reasoning goes, why else would someone, somewhere in the chain of command, divert a resource to attack a target outside of the natural battlefield? For shits and giggles?
Maybe because they reported stories someone high in the chain of command didn't want reported. Simple enough. Fortunately, you'll be there to help them come up with an unsupported lie like "they were broadcasting troop positions."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:54 PM on November 30, 2005
jsavimbi, you're all over the moral map on this one....
1> The post is off-topic.
2> Besides, al-Jazeera are actively in kahoots with the insurgents.
3> What do you mean, you disagree? Are you intentionally obtuse? Obviously, you have an agenda.
4> Well, sure, I don't have any evidence to back up my original claim, but you just have a tenuous argument based on some coincidences.
5> Well, sure, there are a lot of coincidences (and the Blair government is actively covering up the memo...) but we all know that Bush takes his marching orders from the neoconservatives anyway. So, what's the big deal?
6> Besides, we obviously targeted al-Jazeera anyway, so it's gotta be okay.
7> Well, sure, it violates the Geneva Conventions, but what doesn't these days? What's the outrage anyway?
8> I'm not bearing a grudge or pushing an agenda. I'm just saying that you should obviously defer to my experience in waterboarding people when I say that everything's A-ok! No harm, no foul!
9> Besides, you're all complicit in this too. That makes you a war criminal, but you don't seem to mind. So why the outrage against your leaders?
10> So, you're saying to me that you're upset about being lumped in as a war criminal, and you don't approve of your leaders authorizing attacks against civilians, because that kind of justification means that we're ALL potential targets? Well, let me go back to step one and explain it all to you again...
Ladies and gents, we bring you the great jsavimbi, master of circular logic and self-justification!
I should perhaps point out that I know several active soldiers who work as interrogators in Iraq. No offense, but they think that people like you who bend over backwards to justify any rotten, inhumane act they can are unpatriotic, unamerican, and hurtful to their cause.
If you want to disagree with soldiers who actually served in Iraq, you're more than welcome to do so.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:45 PM on November 30, 2005
1> The post is off-topic.
2> Besides, al-Jazeera are actively in kahoots with the insurgents.
3> What do you mean, you disagree? Are you intentionally obtuse? Obviously, you have an agenda.
4> Well, sure, I don't have any evidence to back up my original claim, but you just have a tenuous argument based on some coincidences.
5> Well, sure, there are a lot of coincidences (and the Blair government is actively covering up the memo...) but we all know that Bush takes his marching orders from the neoconservatives anyway. So, what's the big deal?
6> Besides, we obviously targeted al-Jazeera anyway, so it's gotta be okay.
7> Well, sure, it violates the Geneva Conventions, but what doesn't these days? What's the outrage anyway?
8> I'm not bearing a grudge or pushing an agenda. I'm just saying that you should obviously defer to my experience in waterboarding people when I say that everything's A-ok! No harm, no foul!
9> Besides, you're all complicit in this too. That makes you a war criminal, but you don't seem to mind. So why the outrage against your leaders?
10> So, you're saying to me that you're upset about being lumped in as a war criminal, and you don't approve of your leaders authorizing attacks against civilians, because that kind of justification means that we're ALL potential targets? Well, let me go back to step one and explain it all to you again...
Ladies and gents, we bring you the great jsavimbi, master of circular logic and self-justification!
I should perhaps point out that I know several active soldiers who work as interrogators in Iraq. No offense, but they think that people like you who bend over backwards to justify any rotten, inhumane act they can are unpatriotic, unamerican, and hurtful to their cause.
If you want to disagree with soldiers who actually served in Iraq, you're more than welcome to do so.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:45 PM on November 30, 2005
Dude, you're a nut.
On an aside, next post you need to get some [good] info that's hot off the presses (ie. it came out today), throw in a couple (2) of links that refute your post, and then at the end, back it up with one or two posts that confirm your orignal premise.
Like this:
President Bush crapped his pants today. Scott McClellan and Karl Rove both denied than any president has ever crapped his pants, but Patrick Fitzgerald has the video (wmv).
Take a swing at that and I'll have less chances of having my fun with you. Btw, please, I implore you, stop linking to or mentioning Live Journal. It's not highly respected by the IQ crowd, if you know what I mean. (read: easily debunked as housewife gossip).
Cheers and good luck next time!
posted by jsavimbi at 3:40 PM on November 30, 2005
On an aside, next post you need to get some [good] info that's hot off the presses (ie. it came out today), throw in a couple (2) of links that refute your post, and then at the end, back it up with one or two posts that confirm your orignal premise.
Like this:
President Bush crapped his pants today. Scott McClellan and Karl Rove both denied than any president has ever crapped his pants, but Patrick Fitzgerald has the video (wmv).
Take a swing at that and I'll have less chances of having my fun with you. Btw, please, I implore you, stop linking to or mentioning Live Journal. It's not highly respected by the IQ crowd, if you know what I mean. (read: easily debunked as housewife gossip).
Cheers and good luck next time!
posted by jsavimbi at 3:40 PM on November 30, 2005
Number of links posted by jsavimbi pointing to corroborating evidence for his claims: 0
Number of links posted by insomnia_lj pointing to corroborating evidence for his claims: 10
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:12 PM on November 30, 2005
Number of links posted by insomnia_lj pointing to corroborating evidence for his claims: 10
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:12 PM on November 30, 2005
Yes, yes, jsavimbi... obviously the soldiers who serve over in Iraq can be easily dismissed if they stay in touch with their friends and family via an easy-to-use service like LiveJournal, which allows them to effortlessly make secure, private posts to whoever they want, as opposed to something more professional and high-tech which requires web hosting and experience with perl scripts.
I mean, really... how *DARE* they create their own custom-made CSS templates! Those traitors..!
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:41 PM on November 30, 2005
I mean, really... how *DARE* they create their own custom-made CSS templates! Those traitors..!
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:41 PM on November 30, 2005
Small revision. I should say "how dare they not create their own custom CSS templates". Otherwise, my point stands.
As for the soldiers whose choice of journal/weblog service you criticize as "not respected by the IQ crowd", I would say lots of respected bloggers would disagree with you.
"Direct Order: Read Ginmar. If you haven't read A View from A Broad yet, you should. From the beginning. It's that good, and that compelling, and all that a blog can be. Everyone, from either side of the political aisle, should read it."
"Terry Karney (Pecunium on livejournal) says that the point at which he knew the administration had been lying about WMD was when he was being briefed in Kuwait "that no expectation of WMD being used was the order of the day"
"Ginmar, she of the Iraqi war and Livejournal, is now back in the US. She is a terrific writer, and she puts her finger on the truth and pushes till her knuckles go white. . . Boy, does she command respect."
By the way jsavimbi, I really love your website. Very functional, that. How do you find the time?! I mean, in early 2004, you were embracing latin and sharing your lucky numbers, and you followed that masterwork with a youthful display of gang signs. How charming!
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:15 PM on November 30, 2005
As for the soldiers whose choice of journal/weblog service you criticize as "not respected by the IQ crowd", I would say lots of respected bloggers would disagree with you.
"Direct Order: Read Ginmar. If you haven't read A View from A Broad yet, you should. From the beginning. It's that good, and that compelling, and all that a blog can be. Everyone, from either side of the political aisle, should read it."
"Terry Karney (Pecunium on livejournal) says that the point at which he knew the administration had been lying about WMD was when he was being briefed in Kuwait "that no expectation of WMD being used was the order of the day"
"Ginmar, she of the Iraqi war and Livejournal, is now back in the US. She is a terrific writer, and she puts her finger on the truth and pushes till her knuckles go white. . . Boy, does she command respect."
By the way jsavimbi, I really love your website. Very functional, that. How do you find the time?! I mean, in early 2004, you were embracing latin and sharing your lucky numbers, and you followed that masterwork with a youthful display of gang signs. How charming!
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:15 PM on November 30, 2005
« Older Dressing up like a big douche? Priceless. | Breaking Up The Band Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Then he claimed we ought to have an 'official secrets' act like Brittan's. Some "conservative".
By the way, this guy went out of his way to sound exactly like Rush Limbaugh, not just in content but in the way his voice sounded as well. It was eerie.
posted by delmoi at 2:32 PM on November 29, 2005